Re: Why have to need to explain away regenerations??

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
Bazza got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:

"gerard.morvan" <gerard.morvan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44f54b87$0$27406$ba4acef3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Bazza" <bazza2556@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
223Jg.182075$9d4.151243@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let's face it...in the Batman movie series Keaton morphed into Kilmer who
moved into Clooney.

In James Bond Connery turned into Lazenby then BACK again to Connery, then
Moore then Dalton then Brosnan and now Craig.

Did any of these movies even try and explain why the main star of the show
now looks different? No. does anybody care? No.

Bazza, the examples you cited are series of _independant_ movies, with one
to four years between each installment, not the continuing weekly
adventures of the same character. And that, from my point of view, makes
the difference.

Your argument holds no water. I use the Australian daily TV program
"Neighbours" as an example. The character of Scott Robinson was originally
played by actor Darius Perkins but was replaced by Jason Donovan when the
show moved to Network 10 in 1986. Nobody complained or even seemed to notice
the difference. In the UK, soap opera Coronation Street, Nick Tilsley's
character made an amazing transformation from skinny Warren Jackson into
hunk Adam Rickitt and no one kicked up a fuss.

I was watching Corrie when this happened, and the character had been
gone for months between the two actors. (Can't comment on Neighbours.)

Oh, and never say "the soaps do it, so it must be acceptable" when
Aggie's around.

--
Remove caps to communicate more easily.

"twat ... bogey nosed newbie" - Steve F
"a prize prick ... lol" - FairPlay
"another person for the killfile" - DBurns
"Another case of evidence I wish to ignore" - The Doctor
.

Relevant Pages